Share this:

Well, isn’t everyone tremendously excited about Splinter Cell: Conviction? There was a bit of fatigue setting in when the game was first announced… six hundred years ago, despite Chaos Theory still being well loved. Ubisoft had two factories making it at once, trying to produce one a year, and it didn’t bode well. Then it went quiet and they seemed to have the idea of spending ages on it, to make it really good. Well, it’s looking that way. There’s a new trailer fresh from Comic Con, in which you can enjoy the head-smashing, wall-crashing brutality of a Very Angry Man who wants his missing daughter back.

88 Comments

Duckmeister, no damage was done. Not that I give a shit what any of you think really (no offense), but as I pointed out, I did enjoy Chaos Theory as well.

@Paul_M what the hell does “evolved” mean. Just because Ubisoft added a bunch of features and take some away does not mean the game is “evolved.” This is not some sports game where the goal is to simulate real life so every feature that adds to that can be considered a step forward.

@Joshua – goodness, why is evolved such a contentious word all of a sudden. I don’t really see what you’re getting at with the whole “real life” comment. How would you describe it? I just mean it has… changed.. mutated, evolved… What do you want from me? Please try and cool it a little – I fail to see how me calling the game “evolved”, in an oh-so-inflammatory way, apparently, is any different from Joker saying the existing features should “improve”. Healthy scepticism is great but some gamers seem to have blazing outrage as their default settings.

@Paul_M: they are not “evolving” anything, they seem to be following the trend of setting demolition charges on the franchise and then building a gears of war clone in the crater and covering it with left over Splinter Cell guts

This and Mafia 2 are without a doubt the two games I’m looking forward to the most.

And to people bitching about revamps like this being an “insult” to a franchise: your old games are still sitting on your shelf, unmolested. They didn’t cease to exist. Just because the game that’s being made isn’t the one that’s in your head doesn’t mean that anybody is spitting in your face or slapping your grandmother.

Sometimes “evolution” results in retardation without killing the offspring, the offspring will pass this retardation to its offspring until a poor season or other such challenge results in total failure of that branch of the species.

Evolution in the classical sense can only be judged after the matter, true here too. Don’t tell me you have evolved, tell me you have changed, i’ll decide if this branching is valid.

@Heliocentric – By your definition, evolution may be positive or negative. You may of course interpret the word as you wish but other definitions exist outside of the “classical sense” and are equally as valid. Can we perhaps lay this irrelevant and tired pedantic discussion to rest?

Evolving is changing without dying/being unable to replicate. But, the customer will decide if the sales are bad. Thats all i mean, i’m actually excited as the real splinter cell developers have yet to screw up.

I don’t like dow2 for example, but it wasn’t an abortive game, just not to my taste. I still care about the work of relic, i still care about ubi montreal’s work.

@Goomich: you think E3 awards have any value whatsoever ? they might as well say “ranks n°3 in the hypetrometer!!!!” it doesnt mean anything, the “game of the year” awards also mean nothing but at least i could say the ppl that hand those awards at least have the whole game on their hands, whoever handed the E3 award just watched trailers/techdemos

Wowzers. There’s an awful lot of false sense of entitlement going on in this thread.

I really enjoyed Splinter Cell, Pandora Tomorrow, Chaos Theory and to a lesser extent Double Agent. I’m looking forward to this and hopefully it’ll be good – we’ll see.

I do find it tremendously amusing the people getting all wound up about it being called a sequel. It is one because they say it is one, it’s their intellectual property so they can do whatever they want. They could make a Sam Fisher tennis game and it’d still be a sequel. The only thing that’s relevant is whether it’s entertaining, currently I think it looks like it will be but we shall see.

Yeah hopefully this is good.
I don’t understand people who just want the same game as Chaos Theory but shiny.
Yes Chaos Theory is good but it hasn’t gone anywhere it still is a good game.
Hopefully this will be good too.

@TMP where else could you go with splinter cell after all the sequels?
You can’t really do the same game again with new locations without tomb raidering yourself.
Look at Halo after 3 sequels pretty much exactly the same they threw out an RTS.
An rts splinter cell wouldn’t be much different then the spy levels in red alert 2.
I just want the game to be a solid ‘whatever it is they are doing with it’.
You know without turning it into a Wanted: weapons of fate clone.

There was no other stealth game like Splinter Cell. They gave us the masterpiece that is Chaos Theory, then decide “FUCK STEALTH PEW PEW!” We’re not “entitled,” we’re angry that we lost another great franchise to the sales monster.

@TMP where else could you go with splinter cell after all the sequels?
You can’t really do the same game again with new locations without tomb raidering yourself.

Well, see, the Tomb Raider controls were shit, and they absolutely refused to improve on the formula.
Splinter Cell is smooth as butter, and all we want is more Chaos Theory. When we heard a new Splinter Cell from the good studio was being made, we didn’t think “I WANT TO SMASH HEADS ON TOILETS.”

@TMP where else could you go with splinter cell after all the sequels?

Anywhere. My point was, the particular direction they did pick was the most obvious and safe route they could pick for such tired IP. It had nothing to do with willing to take risks or doing something indeed different, which made the praise misguided.